because I didn't fall in love with that film like most people did, quite honestly, I think Into Darkness was a superior film

What....? /facepalm

Honestly, what does it take....

The death of Spock, after a series and 2 films was earned. Within the juxtaposition of saving the ship during the birth of a new world. Kirk quotes from a book that Spock gave to him on his birthday, solidifying not only an earned friendship, but vastly superior writing and storytelling. On the back of a solid film with one of the most memorable, over the top (good) badie performances of all time...

Good grief man. I have seen some pretty questionable opinions on film from you, but that comment takes the cake. quite honestly, they are not even in the same league. Effects wise, of course there is superior design coming from JJ, it's 2013 and 150 million budget....but without the shaky cam, lens flares and veneer, Wrath of Khan holds it's own to this day. Which says more about the film, than your opinion...

Wrath of Khan is still the better film. That is just fact.

No it is NOT a fact! saying that it is makes you sound incredibly arrogant and ignorant not EVERYONE HAS to love Wath Of Khan, I think it's a decent film but I just wasn't blown away by it like most people were.

You're right about them not being in the same league, Into Darkness is far superior IMO, i'm sorry you can't accept someone having a different opinon then you

Sun May 19, 2013 4:29 pm

ilovemovies

Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 amPosts: 2258

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

I agree with nologo that Wrath of Khan is VASTLY superior, but I also agree with Vexer that saying Wrath of Khan is better is not fact, obviously and an opinion. It's all subjective and to criticize somebody for their taste is silly and says more about you than the person whose taste's you are criticizing.

Hey man, I love a LOT of movies that would be considered awful films. People often site Kevin Costner's The Postman as one of the worst movies of all time and I friggin' LOVE that movie! Heck, I even enjoyed Gigli a bit too. So we all have different tastes, no need to be offended by them. That's just stupid.

Sun May 19, 2013 4:37 pm

Vexer

Auteur

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pmPosts: 3606Location: Zion, IL

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

ilovemovies wrote:

I agree with nologo that Wrath of Khan is VASTLY superior, but I also agree with Vexer that saying Wrath of Khan is better is not fact, obviously and an opinion. It's all subjective and to criticize somebody for their taste is silly and says more about you than the person whose taste's you are criticizing.

Hey man, I love a LOT of movies that would be considered awful films. People often site Kevin Costner's The Postman as one of the worst movies of all time and I friggin' LOVE that movie! Heck, I even enjoyed Gigli a bit too. So we all have different tastes, no need to be offended by them. That's just stupid.

Thank you, I also like those films you mentioned. Another "worst film ever" I like is Ballistic: Ecks Vs. Sever, I also like Uwe Boll's films.

Maybe I would've liked Khan better if i'd grown attached to TOS like JB is, but i'm not, i've only seen a few episodes of it, and I found them decent but I was neve really compelled to watch every episode of TOS.

I will say that I like it the best out of the first six films, but I don't think it's quite as good as First Contact, Nemesis or the 2009 film.

I agree with nologo that Wrath of Khan is VASTLY superior, but I also agree with Vexer that saying Wrath of Khan is better is not fact, obviously and an opinion. It's all subjective and to criticize somebody for their taste is silly and says more about you than the person whose taste's you are criticizing.

Hey man, I love a LOT of movies that would be considered awful films. People often site Kevin Costner's The Postman as one of the worst movies of all time and I friggin' LOVE that movie! Heck, I even enjoyed Gigli a bit too. So we all have different tastes, no need to be offended by them. That's just stupid.

You and Vexer are the first people I am familiar with who actually liked Kevin Costner's The Postman. I personally found that film incredibly boring and overlong (a common trait in even Costner's best films) with Costner himself spending too much brooding and making Hamlet seem decisive by comparison.

That being said, I agree with you that all opinion of film is ultimately subjective, and my film tastes are certainly quite different from others. However, at the same time, I don't have a problem in criticizing someone's taste in film, so long as that is done without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Sun May 19, 2013 5:26 pm

nologo

Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:16 amPosts: 117

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

ilovemovies wrote:

I agree with nologo that Wrath of Khan is VASTLY superior, but I also agree with Vexer that saying Wrath of Khan is better is not fact, obviously and an opinion. It's all subjective and to criticize somebody for their taste is silly and says more about you than the person whose taste's you are criticizing.

In most cases I would agree, but in this case, not so much...

The Wrath of Khan is held to such esteem the writers (vocally their fav of the series) had such a hard on for it they paid pathological homage to it in Into Darkness...even moments of the reboot had homages to it.

His statement was silly...and ripe for a little ripping...

Sun May 19, 2013 6:49 pm

Ken

Director

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pmPosts: 1743

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

I liked this movie. I was surprised that I liked this movie. It still isn't quite the continuation of the Star Trek tradition that I'm looking for, but it's much closer than the previous movie was. It's a pretty balanced adventure movie, J.J. Abrams manages to tame his ADHD style every once in a while to do some visual storytelling, and, for the most part, the new cast was more credible this time around in these famous roles.

On that last bit, though... there are two things I really wish these filmmakers would stop doing.

1. The endless nods, swipes, and outright reenactments from Wrath of Khan. We get it. It's the one everybody likes. But it's starting to seem like the only one that any of these filmmakers has actually seen. I don't even mind the story similarities (centuries-old genetically enhanced warrior wants to revive his dormant crewmates to take over the world), but using this new second movie as a pretext to ape key elements from the original second movie, villain and all, makes this feel like fan fiction at times.

2. And while I'm on the subject of bringing back old characters: I never thought I'd be so disappointed to see Leonard Nimoy in a Star Trek film. One of my biggest objections to the previous movie was that the new actors seemed like kids playacting in their parents' clothes. I didn't get that as much from this movie, because it mostly avoids making gratuitous references to the prime timeline like the previous one did so much. For much of Into Darkness, these actors were allowed to do what they should be able to do: grow into these roles without nostalgia hanging on them like a wet blanket. And then, in a crucial moment, we had a pointy-eared reminder of The Way Things Were come popping back, in a way that somehow seemed damaging to the credibility that the new cast has struggled to earn.

If I can be permitted to "fix" Into Darkness, I would forget revealing "John Harrison" as Khan, leave out the Nimoy cameo, and for fuck's sake, I would not not NOT regurgitate the most revered death scene in the entire Star Trek canon. That was bullshit--a huge fumble that the movie barely recovered in time for the ending.

Like I said, I thought this was a big improvement over the last film, which didn't start to feel like Star Trek until the Alexander Courage theme at the end. But the filmmakers need to let go of the apron strings of the prime timeline. And they really need to give Wrath of Khan a rest.

I don't like spending the majority of my post talking about my objections, because it makes it seem like I didn't like the film. I did like it. But it was also a disappointment, and it bums me out that my disappointment stems from just a few nagging issues that are probably going to dog the reboot series for as long as it runs.

_________________The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.

Sun May 19, 2013 11:41 pm

ck100

Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:07 pmPosts: 210

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Ken wrote:

I liked this movie. I was surprised that I liked this movie. It still isn't quite the continuation of the Star Trek tradition that I'm looking for, but it's much closer than the previous movie was. It's a pretty balanced adventure movie, J.J. Abrams manages to tame his ADHD style every once in a while to do some visual storytelling, and, for the most part, the new cast was more credible this time around in these famous roles.

On that last bit, though... there are two things I really wish these filmmakers would stop doing.

1. The endless nods, swipes, and outright reenactments from Wrath of Khan. We get it. It's the one everybody likes. But it's starting to seem like the only one that any of these filmmakers has actually seen. I don't even mind the story similarities (centuries-old genetically enhanced warrior wants to revive his dormant crewmates to take over the world), but using this new second movie as a pretext to ape key elements from the original second movie, villain and all, makes this feel like fan fiction at times.

2. And while I'm on the subject of bringing back old characters: I never thought I'd be so disappointed to see Leonard Nimoy in a Star Trek film. One of my biggest objections to the previous movie was that the new actors seemed like kids playacting in their parents' clothes. I didn't get that as much from this movie, because it mostly avoids making gratuitous references to the prime timeline like the previous one did so much. For much of Into Darkness, these actors were allowed to do what they should be able to do: grow into these roles without nostalgia hanging on them like a wet blanket. And then, in a crucial moment, we had a pointy-eared reminder of The Way Things Were come popping back, in a way that somehow seemed damaging to the credibility that the new cast has struggled to earn.

If I can be permitted to "fix" Into Darkness, I would forget revealing "John Harrison" as Khan, leave out the Nimoy cameo, and for fuck's sake, I would not not NOT regurgitate the most revered death scene in the entire Star Trek canon. That was bullshit--a huge fumble that the movie barely recovered in time for the ending.

Like I said, I thought this was a big improvement over the last film, which didn't start to feel like Star Trek until the Alexander Courage theme at the end. But the filmmakers need to let go of the apron strings of the prime timeline. And they really need to give Wrath of Khan a rest.

I don't like spending the majority of my post talking about my objections, because it makes it seem like I didn't like the film. I did like it. But it was also a disappointment, and it bums me out that my disappointment stems from just a few nagging issues that are probably going to dog the reboot series for as long as it runs.

I couldn't agree more with the stuff you mentioned in your spoiler section.

Mon May 20, 2013 2:05 am

Sean

Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pmPosts: 448

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

So, all in all, would most of you say that this was a letdown?

Mon May 20, 2013 2:55 pm

Sean

Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pmPosts: 448

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Ken wrote:

I liked this movie. I was surprised that I liked this movie. It still isn't quite the continuation of the Star Trek tradition that I'm looking for, but it's much closer than the previous movie was. It's a pretty balanced adventure movie, J.J. Abrams manages to tame his ADHD style every once in a while to do some visual storytelling, and, for the most part, the new cast was more credible this time around in these famous roles.

On that last bit, though... there are two things I really wish these filmmakers would stop doing.

1. The endless nods, swipes, and outright reenactments from Wrath of Khan. We get it. It's the one everybody likes. But it's starting to seem like the only one that any of these filmmakers has actually seen. I don't even mind the story similarities (centuries-old genetically enhanced warrior wants to revive his dormant crewmates to take over the world), but using this new second movie as a pretext to ape key elements from the original second movie, villain and all, makes this feel like fan fiction at times.

2. And while I'm on the subject of bringing back old characters: I never thought I'd be so disappointed to see Leonard Nimoy in a Star Trek film. One of my biggest objections to the previous movie was that the new actors seemed like kids playacting in their parents' clothes. I didn't get that as much from this movie, because it mostly avoids making gratuitous references to the prime timeline like the previous one did so much. For much of Into Darkness, these actors were allowed to do what they should be able to do: grow into these roles without nostalgia hanging on them like a wet blanket. And then, in a crucial moment, we had a pointy-eared reminder of The Way Things Were come popping back, in a way that somehow seemed damaging to the credibility that the new cast has struggled to earn.

If I can be permitted to "fix" Into Darkness, I would forget revealing "John Harrison" as Khan, leave out the Nimoy cameo, and for fuck's sake, I would not not NOT regurgitate the most revered death scene in the entire Star Trek canon. That was bullshit--a huge fumble that the movie barely recovered in time for the ending.

Like I said, I thought this was a big improvement over the last film, which didn't start to feel like Star Trek until the Alexander Courage theme at the end. But the filmmakers need to let go of the apron strings of the prime timeline. And they really need to give Wrath of Khan a rest.

I don't like spending the majority of my post talking about my objections, because it makes it seem like I didn't like the film. I did like it. But it was also a disappointment, and it bums me out that my disappointment stems from just a few nagging issues that are probably going to dog the reboot series for as long as it runs.

I was actually a pretty big fan of the original film. It was playing on FX last night, so I decided to re-watch it (twice). Solid sci-fi film, albeit lacking in terms of a convincing villain. Normally, I would have been repelled by the notion of Star Trek being turned into a space opera, but Abrams does it really well here. It's not just good sci-fi; it's a good movie.

Mon May 20, 2013 3:00 pm

Awf Hand

Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:26 amPosts: 256

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Sean wrote:

So, all in all, would most of you say that this was a letdown?

The series tag line "To boldly go where no one has gone before." Yeah, they didn't do that. They boldly went where they had been before and made it look good enough to appeal to today's audiences.

My feeling is that they are beginning to treat "Star Trek" the same way as they treated "Mission Impossible". It has been taken from something cerebral and thought provoking and turned into explosions and explosions.

While I enjoyed the movie, I don't like the direction they went -if that makes sense.

_______________________________________________My milkshake bringeth all thee gentlefolk to mine yard. Verily, 'tis better than thine. I would instruct thee, but I must levy a fee.

Mon May 20, 2013 3:20 pm

Vexer

Auteur

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pmPosts: 3606Location: Zion, IL

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Awf Hand wrote:

Sean wrote:

So, all in all, would most of you say that this was a letdown?

The series tag line "To boldly go where no one has gone before." Yeah, they didn't do that. They boldly went where they had been before and made it look good enough to appeal to today's audiences.

My feeling is that they are beginning to treat "Star Trek" the same way as they treated "Mission Impossible". It has been taken from something cerebral and thought provoking and turned into explosions and explosions.

While I enjoyed the movie, I don't like the direction they went -if that makes sense.

Well I for one loved the direction the series is going in, I think the film was thought-provoking in that the main villain wasn't some one-dimensional megalomaniac.

Mon May 20, 2013 3:36 pm

Sean

Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pmPosts: 448

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Awf Hand wrote:

Sean wrote:

So, all in all, would most of you say that this was a letdown?

The series tag line "To boldly go where no one has gone before." Yeah, they didn't do that. They boldly went where they had been before and made it look good enough to appeal to today's audiences.

My feeling is that they are beginning to treat "Star Trek" the same way as they treated "Mission Impossible". It has been taken from something cerebral and thought provoking and turned into explosions and explosions.

While I enjoyed the movie, I don't like the direction they went -if that makes sense.

The series tag line "To boldly go where no one has gone before." Yeah, they didn't do that. They boldly went where they had been before and made it look good enough to appeal to today's audiences.

My feeling is that they are beginning to treat "Star Trek" the same way as they treated "Mission Impossible". It has been taken from something cerebral and thought provoking and turned into explosions and explosions.

While I enjoyed the movie, I don't like the direction they went -if that makes sense.

Agreed, though the first MI film didn't do a whole lot for me, I pretty much agree with JB's review, it had a handful of exciting scenes, but had far too many plot holes for me to overlook. Part 2 was a significant improvement, part 3 was even better.

Agreed, though the first MI film didn't do a whole lot for me, I pretty much agree with JB's review, it had a handful of exciting scenes, but had far too many plot holes for me to overlook. Part 2 was a significant improvement, part 3 was even better.

-and I would bet that neither of you have seen one episode of the original series. They weren't "action" oriented. Action had nothing to do with them. Have you ever seen "Law and Order"? Now do a movie with explosions, gunfights, car chases, explosions, martial arts, gunfights, explosions and gunfights. We'll call it "Law and Order" and even give you the 'doink doink' sound effect before shit blows up.

_______________________________________________My milkshake bringeth all thee gentlefolk to mine yard. Verily, 'tis better than thine. I would instruct thee, but I must levy a fee.

Agreed, though the first MI film didn't do a whole lot for me, I pretty much agree with JB's review, it had a handful of exciting scenes, but had far too many plot holes for me to overlook. Part 2 was a significant improvement, part 3 was even better.

-and I would bet that neither of you have seen one episode of the original series. They weren't "action" oriented. Action had nothing to do with them. Have you ever seen "Law and Order"? Now do a movie with explosions, gunfights, car chases, explosions, martial arts, gunfights, explosions and gunfights. We'll call it "Law and Order" and even give you the 'doink doink' sound effect before shit blows up.

I actually love the original television series, hence my disdain for the first three movies. The fourth one just worked though, as a solid action picture that wasn't dumb.

Mon May 20, 2013 4:33 pm

Awf Hand

Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:26 amPosts: 256

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Sean wrote:

I actually love the original television series, hence my disdain for the first three movies. The fourth one just worked though, as a solid action picture that wasn't dumb.

Fair enough. I might give the fourth one a try on your endorsement. My feeling was Oceans 11 was a better MI than any of the Cruise-led pics.

_______________________________________________My milkshake bringeth all thee gentlefolk to mine yard. Verily, 'tis better than thine. I would instruct thee, but I must levy a fee.

Mon May 20, 2013 4:37 pm

Vexer

Auteur

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pmPosts: 3606Location: Zion, IL

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Awf Hand wrote:

Sean wrote:

I actually love the original television series, hence my disdain for the first three movies. The fourth one just worked though, as a solid action picture that wasn't dumb.

Fair enough. I might give the fourth one a try on your endorsement. My feeling was Oceans 11 was a better MI than any of the Cruise-led pics.

I saw a few episodes and I wasn't particularly impressed, so looks like you're bet was off. I think the MI films took the premise of the series and improved upon it.

Mon May 20, 2013 5:10 pm

Awf Hand

Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:26 amPosts: 256

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Vexer wrote:

I wasn't particularly impressed...

Yeah, totally blindsided by that.

Greg Morris walked out of the premier. Nuff said.

_______________________________________________My milkshake bringeth all thee gentlefolk to mine yard. Verily, 'tis better than thine. I would instruct thee, but I must levy a fee.

Mon May 20, 2013 5:22 pm

Vexer

Auteur

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pmPosts: 3606Location: Zion, IL

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Awf Hand wrote:

Vexer wrote:

I wasn't particularly impressed...

Yeah, totally blindsided by that.

Greg Morris walked out of the premier. Nuff said.

So what? The films are automatically bad just cause he didn't like them? Not everyone has to like the TV series.

Mon May 20, 2013 5:48 pm

patrick

Second Unit Director

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:57 pmPosts: 360

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Vexer wrote:

Awf Hand wrote:

Vexer wrote:

I wasn't particularly impressed...

Yeah, totally blindsided by that.

Greg Morris walked out of the premier. Nuff said.

So what? The films are automatically bad just cause he didn't like them? Not everyone has to like the TV series.

His opinion does hold slightly more weight, he actually was in the TV show. Totally wrong cause the first one was pretty good fun but it's not some random guy walking out.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum